Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12

From: Min Ye <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:36:58 -0700

Reviewer: Papadimitriou Dimitri
Review result: Has Issues

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno/

As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to
determine whether the document has any potential impact on routing applications
(BGP, LDP, etc.).

Document: draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12
Reviewer: D.Papadimitriou
Review Date: 28-10-2019
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before it is submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

- May be the document can document if there is any modification for what
concerns closing of connections (in its current version the document provides a
requirement in Section 5 but no actual procedure)

Nits:

- Include ref. for Section 3 on Terminology (SYN, ACK, etc.)

- Section 4 states " It uses a new TCP option kind " may be worth explaining
which *new* kind ?

- s/ 4.5.  The Negotiated Tep/ 4.5.  The Negotiated TEP

Thanks,
-dimitri.

---

From: David Mazieres <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 22:34:50 -0700

Min Ye <[email-masked]> writes:

> I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before it is submitted to the IESG.
>
> Comments:
>
> - May be the document can document if there is any modification for
> what concerns closing of connections (in its current version the
> document provides a requirement in Section 5 but no actual procedure)

Thanks for the review and the comments.  All of your other comments
besides the above one are already slated to be fixed in the next draft.

As for closing the connection, the intent of the ENO draft is for the
actual close procedure to be delegated to the individual TEPs.  During
the working group, we saw at least two different cases depending on
whether an encryption protocol authenticates individual TCP segments
(like Joe Touch's ao-encrypt proposal and early drafts of tcpcrypt) or
it authenticates data frames that may span TCP segments (like
tcp-use-TLS and tcpcrypt in its current form).  The goal of the ENO
draft is to set minimum security requirements for all TEPs without
ruling out either approach.

Given that the tcpcrypt TEP draft does in fact specify the close
procedure, do you think it is okay to leave the ENO draft as is?  Or, as
another alternative, ENO could simply state that any TEP must clearly
specify the exact close procedure.

Thanks,
David